What is the biggest difference between a Biography and an Auto-Biography? With the latter you get to write your own life story. This has its advantages and disadvantages.

Pros

You have the most intimate knowledge of your life. That is, you can describe things from a perspective that no one else can.

You have details no one else has

You can describe your emotions that might not have shown in our outward demeanor

You can describe your thoughts that were never shared before

Cons

You are biased toward your story

You will write about yourself in the best possible light

Even when describing mistakes you made you add supposed reasonable excuses

I'm sure you could list more pros and cons but this should make my point. When we write an auto-biography or even a biography of someone we love we do our best to leave out embarrassing details. In the Gospel narratives we find detail after detail that is embarrassing. The question we have to ask ourselves is this; What did the author have to gain by telling this detail? Obviously if it is embarrassing he has more to lose than gain. So why would he make it up? This sort of reasoning lends the investigator to infer they are telling the truth. Therefore, let us look at some of the embarrassing details in the Gospel accounts.

The Apostles

Apostles are described as dim-witted (Mark 9:32, Luke 18:34)

Apostles are uncaring--They continually fall asleep on Jesus the night he is betrayed.

Apostles are rebuked--Peter is called "Satan" by Jesus (Mark 8:33)

Apostles doubt the resurrection (Matthew 28:17, Luke 24:11)

Why would they make this sort of stuff up? If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John really are the authors of the Gospels then why tell these details? Because they are true. Someone might object, "The Gospels were written years later by anonymous Christians who attributed their work to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John." Ok let us go with that for a second. Why would a later Christian who is obviously tying to spread Christianity make up a bunch of embarrassing details about those who founded the Church? I've met some dumb Christians but this would top the list. The only reasonable conclusion is that the details are true.

But did you know that the Apostles aren't the only ones described with embarrassing details. The Gospels also give us embarrassing details about Jesus.

Jesus

Is called a “madman” (Jn 10:20)

Is called a “drunkard” (Mt 11:19)

Is called “demon-possessed” (Mk 3:22, Jn 7:20, 8:48)

Has his feet wiped with hair of a prostitute (Lk 7:36-39)

Again we have to ask the same question. If the Apostles are writing a story in order to make up a new religion why in the world would they leave in details like this? Jesus is supposed to be the hero of the story. He is supposed to be "god-like" in the eyes of the reader. To a Jew reading these sort of details Jesus wouldn't seem like a hero at all. The person would probably be glad Jesus is crucified at the end of the book. But the Apostles weren't trying to make up a story for people to believe. They were trying to give an eye-witness account of the life, ministry, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Therefore, the details are in the story because they are true and they serve a purpose.

Next time you read an auto-biography see how many embarrassing details you can amass. I bet it won't be much and whatever you do find won't be as bad as the details I've listed above.

Generally sequels in movies are not as good as the original. For some reason they just don’t hold the same luster as the first one. But in our case J. Warner Wallace has done it again. His second book God’s Crime Scene is every bit as dynamic and wonderful as the first Cold Case Christianity.

Once again we are taken through a crime scene through the eyes of a detective. This time, instead of looking at the Gospels, we are looking at the universe. In his opening statement he challenges the reader with the pivotal philosophical question; Can all the evidence be accounted for by staying inside the room or do we need to go outside?

In chapter one I felt like I was in a boxing ring getting peppered with jab after jab. Wallace hits us again and again with pieces of evidence to show that the universe had a beginning. One example after another compels us to believe that all of space/time/matter came into being a finite time ago.

Next we move onto the fine-tuning argument. I think Columbo inspired this chapter; just the facts ma’am. Wallace doesn’t go into great detail over each piece of evidence but he doesn’t need to. Like a good investigator he has done the hard work for you. He presents us with the cold hard facts. If we want to investigate further then his footnotes provide ample quotes and books by believers and non-believers alike so that we can check out his facts.

Then you really have to buckle up, that is, unless you are a scientist. J. Warner Wallace breaks down for us the complexity of the Cell and explains the catch-22 between DNA & Proteins. It is most likely that he did a good job and I was just too slow to follow. Admittedly science isn’t my strong suit. But if you have ever looked at Steven Meyer’s thick book Signature in the Cell and wished you could get some cliff notes then Wallace is your genie in a bottle. I particularly liked the acronym he gave; DESIGNED. I won’t spoil the book but he does use 8 pieces of evidence to form a cumulative case that we are designed.

As we get towards the second half of the book he engages our minds about...well…our minds. That’s right! Some people today believe our mind and brain are the same thing. But as a Christian we believe our mind interacts with our bodies through our brains but if our brain stops working our mind/consciousness lives on. What pieces of circumstantial evidence could possibly lead us to conclude we have a non-material mind? I guess you need to read the book. Don’t we simply have to take that on blind faith? Absolutely not! Wallace uses common sense and examines how we intuitively understand our minds are not the same as our brains. It has always baffled me how naturalists try to reason with us to change our minds and accept their notion that our choices are simply reactions to chemicals. Hello, Mcfly?!?! If I’m nothing more than molecules in motion then I have no free-will to change my mind. Obviously their line of argument wouldn’t stand a chance in a court of law. I’ve read some books by the popular atheist Sam Harris. He argues for a deterministic view of the universe that denies free-will. Wallace shows that our legal system is built on holding people responsible for their choices. If free-will is an illusion should we let all the criminals go? Some argue that free-will arose or evolved. I love how J. Warner Wallace points out the inconsistency in this approach. I had never thought of it before. Sorry no spoilers!!!

The final nail in the coffin to make his case is the issue of morality. First, objective morality points us to God rather than naturalism. Can naturalism account for human dignity and value? Absolutely not. Wallace argues that truth is grounded in a truth giver and that our value comes from the fact we are created in God’s image.

Overall if you liked Cold Case Christianity then get ready to enjoy round 2. One addition that I also enjoyed was the “further studies”. As I said before you are peppered with a lot of information in each chapter. But if you are one of those who likes to dive a bit deeper then Wallace saved that for you as well. Each chapter has a follow up at the end of the book with weightier info. The flow of this book was great. It wasn’t too try, not too technical, and gave us just enough information to make a strong case. If you desire more you can check out his footnotes and his bibliography to read on each topic on a deeper level. But this is the sort of information we need to be teaching our youth. It gives them the pertinent information to know there are good reasons to believe in Christianity. If you are looking for a book to cover most of the major topics in apologetics on a “layman’s” level then this is the book for you.

I think there is only one thing I looked forward to more than reading this book and that is his power-points. If you’ve never seen his power-point presentations then you are missing out. I highly recommend you read this book.

A decent look into manuscript evidence can show us that we have a reliable copy of the New Testament. By that I mean we can have confidence that what we read today in the New Testament is the same thing the original authors wrote. But there is a second question that needs to be asked; Does the New Testament Tell the Truth? Sure we have an accurate copy but we could have a copy of a lie. I want to give you a few lines of evidence that point to the veracity of the NT documents. In this blog post we will talk about the first line:

Eye-Witness TestimonyIf the NT documents were written in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th centuries then they are a lie. How so?

1) Because they claim to be eyewitness documents.

For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased"-- and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. (2Pe 1:16-18)

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us-- what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. (1Jn 1:1-3)

1st Corinthians 15:3-8 testifies to us that the Apostles, including Paul, claimed to have seen the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus.

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)

2) They are very specific about historical details

“In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene—during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert” (Luke 3:1-2). This is not a story stating, "A long time ago in a distant galaxy in middle earth there once was a king." The NT authors were very specific about historical details. Notice Luke names 8 people from history who are all known. They were also known to live at the exact same time. It would be equivalent to me saying, "In the first year of the 2nd Term of Obama administration. Joe Biden is Vice President, Hillary Clinton has already been removed from Secretary of State." You could zero in on the exact date. Therefore, anyone reading the account of Luke's Gospel could look into the historical records and see if he was right. Or if they were still living they could interview the people mentioned by Luke

Imagine trying to convince a person in your state that China invaded them 10 years ago and set up a communist state. You couldn't do this. Why not? Because you wouldn't find one Facebook post, no pictures on Instagram, zero newspaper clippings and most importantly you wouldn't find one eyewitness. So then, how could the Apostles convince people who witnessed Jesus' life and in the town of Jesus' ministry that Jesus bodily rose from the dead? There must have been some compelling evidence.

3) They were accurate with historical details

Archaeologists have combed through the book of Acts and noted 84 historically confirmed details. That is, details that only an eyewitness could have known. For example Luke accurately tells us about one areas dual ports (one In and one Out; Acts 13:13; 14:25-26), local weather patterns (Acts 27:13-14), and where they shipwrecked (Acts 27:29-41--we have found the anchors).

Listen to the report of what the scholars say:

“I began with a mind unfavorable to it {Acts}…; but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.” (Archaeologist William Ramsey, St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen, p. 8)

“For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming…Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.” (Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 189)

“In extraordinary ways, modern archaeology has affirmed the historical core of the Old and New Testaments—corroborating key points of the stories of Israel’s patriarchs, the Exodus, the Davidic monarchy, and the life and times of Jesus.” (Jeffery Sheler, “Is the Bible True,” U.S. News & World Report, October 25th, 1999, 52)

As a matter of fact, however, it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of biblical descriptions had often led to amazing discoveries.” (Dr. Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert, pp. 31-32)

4) They were abundant with historical details--The New Testament documents cite more than 30 people confirmed by secular sources or archaeology

Agrippa I----Acts 12

Agrippa II---Acts 25

Ananias-----Acts 23, 24

Annas-------Luke 3; Jn. 18; Acts 4

Aretas-------2Cor. 11

Bernice-----Acts 23

Augustus---Lk. 2

Caiaphas---Mt. 26; Lk. 3; Jn. 11, 18; Acts 4

Claudius----Acts 11, 18

Drusilla----Acts 24

Egyptian (false prophet)--Acts 21

Erastus----Acts 19

Felix--------Acts 23

Gallio-------Acts 18

Gamaliel---Acts 5

Herod Antipas-----Mt. 14: Mk. 6; Lk. 3, 23

Herod Archelaus--Mt. 2

Herod the Gt.-------Mt. 2: Lk. 1

Herod Philip I-------Mt. 14; Mk. 6

Herod Philip II------Lk. 3

Herodias-------------Mt. 14; Mk. 6

Salome---------------Mt. 14; Mk. 6

James----------------Acts 15; Gal. 1

John the Baptist--Mt. 3; Mk. 1; Lk. 3; Jn. 1

Judas of Galilea--Acts 5

Lysanias------------Lk. 3

Pilate-----------------Mt. 27; Mk. 15; Lk. 23; Jn. 18

Quirinius------------Lk. 2

Porcius Festus---Acts 24-26

Sergius Paulus---Acts 13

Tiberius Caesar--Lk. 3

Therefore, we can be reasonably certain that their claim to be eyewitnesses were accurate. In my next few blogs we will describe how early their testimony was and more reasons we know they were telling the truth.